September 3rd, 2007
03:22 PM ET
15 years ago

In the battle for union workers: Edwards winning

John Edwards has garnered three union endorsements so far during the 2008 presidential race

(CNN) – Democratic White House hopeful John Edwards, who has made a strong push for union support on the campaign trail, picked up two major endorsements Monday, making him the leading candidate for labor endorsements in the presidential field.

The United Steelworkers and the United Mine Workers of America announced their support of Edwards at a rally in downtown Pittsburgh this Labor Day. In a statement, Steelworkers president Leo Gerard said, "All of the Democratic candidates in the field share our values, and any one of them would be a major improvement over the current administration. But none of them is a more forceful advocate for those values than John Edwards. Senator Edwards is committed, as he has been throughout his life, to going to bat for everyday Americans and to changing a broken political system that leaves millions of Americans without a voice in their government."

Edwards told the boisterous rally, “America was not built on Wall Street. America was built by steelworkers and mine workers.”

The Steelworkers in endorsement called Edwards the most electable Democrat in the general election. The candidate said on stage, “I am proud of the fact that these great unions are supporting and endorsing me, and that they said, in the endorsement, that John Edwards is the candidate for president who can campaign and win, in Pennsylvania, in Ohio, in West Virginia, all the places in America where we have to be able to compete and win. I will campaign everywhere”

Full story: Edwards picks up two major union endorsements

- CNN Political Desk Managing Editor Steve Brusk

Related: TIME poll: Edwards ahead of Clinton and Obama in Iowa

Related: Edwards earns carpenters' union endorsement

Related: Clinton gets another big union endorsement

Related: Dodd hopes lightning can strike twice

Filed under: John Edwards
soundoff (59 Responses)
  1. Thomas Henson

    I've supported Edwards since the democratic races of the previous election, when somehow that idiot Kerry was chosen. Let's not do that again. Unlike other candidates, if you want to find out his stance on an issue it is no problem. He isn't all vague concepts and generalized political fodder. Behind Edwards we have Hillary "Let's nuke'em and then castrate them!" Clinton. Then there is Obama... and we know WHAT about this guy again? Well.. he's black.. and he's a democrat? Right. That's all ANY of us know about him. It might be well and good, even "Progressive", of us to elect a woman or a black man as president, but not these two. We should not vote for them based on gender and color. Edwards is a white male, and that garners no political correctness, but he is simply a much better defined, and MUCH more trustworthy candidate than either of those two. Whitewater anyone? Please... we can't afford to make a mistake on this again. Lets get John Edwards the nomination, and then a running mate that isn't obama or clinton.

    September 3, 2007 12:55 pm at 12:55 pm |
  2. cary lowell, in.

    what are the "values" of the United Steelworkers and United Mine Workers? Does anyone know?

    September 3, 2007 01:04 pm at 1:04 pm |
  3. Nikki, Las Vegas, NV

    Edwards is the MOST electable in the general election and does the best in match-up polls against Repupblicans.

    Wake up, people. If you don't want another Republican in the White House, vote for Edwards!

    September 3, 2007 01:15 pm at 1:15 pm |
  4. Thomas Henson

    Excellent. We need a good alternative to Hillary "Let's nuke'em, and then castrate the infidels" Clinton. And Obama whom we really don't know anything about other than that he is black and running for president. Remember everyone, the politically correct choice isn't always the CORRECT choice. Look at the views, not the color or gender of the candidate.

    September 3, 2007 01:16 pm at 1:16 pm |
  5. Anonymous

    he is only more electable then Clinton...and that is not hard to be.

    September 3, 2007 01:19 pm at 1:19 pm |
  6. pl. at the UN for a while.

    I am not American. I cannot vote.

    But I have a tendency to favour any candidate where the spouses take a very visible role on the campaign trail. The more visible, the better.

    The world ignores this appeal that would favour women greatly. Fine. Ms Edwards is there to do her part. Mr Clinton, likewise.

    I keep on asking: "Where is Ms Obama!!?" Does her invisibility have to do with the fact that candidate Obama took a liking, and studied, Islam for 5 years of his life? I hope not. It would not bode well for the women of America.

    September 3, 2007 01:24 pm at 1:24 pm |
  7. Kevin B. Southport, North Carolina

    The guy is so wrong for the U.S. He did NOTHING as a senator for North Carolina-NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING. As soon as he was elected senator, he announced plans to run for President. He is a money hungry lawyer who sued companies for money. Do not vote for this guy.

    September 3, 2007 01:36 pm at 1:36 pm |
  8. Indeopendent Voter, TN

    The union vote is not indicative of mainstream America. Most Americans realize that Unions have become an impediment to U.S. businesses and have outlived their usefulness.

    The airline and auto industries are prime examples of what organized labor does to economic competitiveness. Plus half the union leadership is crooked. Might as well get a mob endorsement as a union endorsement.

    On top of this Edwards is not the fresh change everyone keeps calling for. He's a populist with a negative message about appealing to the have-nots in order to bring down "the man."

    He strikes me as insincere and phony.

    Go, Biden!

    September 3, 2007 01:41 pm at 1:41 pm |
  9. Dan, Tx

    Mr. Obama is Christian and is not Muslim. His wife is not hidden from view at all, I don't know why pl at the UN insists on deliberately lying in this forum.

    As for Thomas Henson; We know a great deal about Obama and his positions, unless you prefer ignorance to knowledge. Obama's positions, as well as any other candidates, are well known to anyone who cares enough to go to the candidates' web sites and invest time in reading them. It is ridiculous for any one to say they don't know where the candidates stand.

    September 3, 2007 01:42 pm at 1:42 pm |
  10. Travis, Greenville, NC

    Awesome!! This is just what Edwards needed, and I know he's going to get the nomination. The leader this early (Clinton) never gets it. He is MOST electable...

    One thing y'all should note who back Clinton and Obama... look at who's leading in the democratic primaries where it counts.. Edwards is up 30% to Clinton's 18% in the latest WRAL news poll of my home state, NC. Could y'all imagine how awesome it would be if the South was actually in play for us Dems during an election.

    Y'all have no idea how many people I know that didn't vote for Edwards because Kerry was #1 on the ticket last time. For all of you who say Edwards can't win his own state, HE CAN... But we are picky down here as to who is #1. If anyone but Edwards is the nominee, you can throw out the south for the Dems yet again.


    September 3, 2007 01:49 pm at 1:49 pm |
  11. Dave, Tucson, Arizona

    They endorse Edwards, because he hits all the right populist notes. Frankly, when he trots Danny Glover around with him on campaign stops it scares me. Glover is an admirer of Fidel Castro and of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez (the guy who is trying to "reform" his country's constitution so that he can be president for life). Any guy that Glover endorses is questionable.

    September 3, 2007 01:49 pm at 1:49 pm |
  12. Bill W, Coatesville, PA

    In response to PL at the UN: The candidates spouses are not running for office, so in my opinion, they have very little to no bearing on the election. Anyone who would vote for a candidate based onwho their spouse is does not even deserve to be allowed to vote, as far as I am concerned. This is the kind of thing that has been wrong with elections for far too long, and why we end up with losers like Bush for preident – because people lose sight of the issues and concentrate too much on the 'side shows', lie the one the Clintons are performing now.

    Also, people who do not live in the US and do not vote here should keep their opinions to themselves.

    September 3, 2007 01:52 pm at 1:52 pm |
  13. Kanbi, Nashville TN

    Edwards is the candidate I support and I am glad that his campaign is building steam in more endorsements from the American people. Remember, John Kerry was not the fruntrunner during the last race, in terms of Democratic candidates. He came from behind to win the nomination. I hope Edwards, too, can follow in Kerry's footsteps and become the Democratic nominee. And then, hoepfully, its on to the White House!

    September 3, 2007 01:53 pm at 1:53 pm |
  14. David, Salinas, CA

    I’m not sure why anyone thinks John Edwards is more electable than Senators Clinton, Obama & Biden or Governor Richardson.

    Edwards has run far to the left in his attempts to play catch-up and has made several comments that will cost him independent votes in the general election. (Remember what Obama said about his “two Americas” at the Democratic convention? Imagine what Fred Thompson would say).

    Edwards may be a straight white southerner, but his personality doesn’t really play well with the good-old-boys. (He didn’t help Kerry in the south one bit).

    Edwards is open to legitimate charges of hypocrisy for his investments, his mansion and his haircuts. (You can’t run one way and live another and expect to be respected).

    He couldn’t beat Dick Cheney in a debate. How’s he going to beat Rudy Giuliani?

    He comes off as cloying, boyish, wimpy, false and un-Presidential. I agree with most of his positions and even I don’t much like him.

    I think Edwards is the weakest of the leading Democratic candidates. The Republican nominee would eat him for breakfast.

    September 3, 2007 01:59 pm at 1:59 pm |
  15. Mark, Philadelphia, PA


    September 3, 2007 02:07 pm at 2:07 pm |
  16. xtina chicago IL

    but what has Edwards really done to qualify him? Im speaking of budget decisions and executive experience. Senators prettymuch just sit and debate. That's all they do, sit and debate. Taking more federal money to feed social prog. does not a President make.

    September 3, 2007 02:11 pm at 2:11 pm |
  17. pl. at the UN for a while.

    Yeah...why are you, CNN, who are presumed by Linda to be an 100% American outfit (with no global outreach...hhhh), allowing an international "passerby" like me, "at the UN for a while" to post on this blog that, as Linda puts it, "is strictly on domestic politics"?

    [you may want to review my response to Linda on the 'Clinton' blog of Sep 1].

    September 3, 2007 02:13 pm at 2:13 pm |
  18. xtina chicago IL

    Pro-union candidates scare me. I am in a union myself, so I have mixed feelings. Some unions stay out of politics, some are greedy and bullying. Look at the car indsutry; I believe unions have a lot to do with their financial failure. Unions have strong-armed car co.s into being nannies for their employees, pretty much taking over every aspect of the employees' health. Car co.s spend more time being like giant managed health-care benefit companies than they do making quality cars.

    September 3, 2007 02:16 pm at 2:16 pm |
  19. Ron, Amman - Jordan (Houston,TX)

    Please remember John Edwards has never won re-election for any position. In fact whenever his term has ended he was so poorly thought of he was afraid to run. He could not win North Carolina in the primary after serving as Governor and Senator. Why?

    September 3, 2007 02:17 pm at 2:17 pm |
  20. Lee Giabenelli, Paris France

    I am casting my absentee ballot for EDWARDS. It would be amazing if it were and EDWARDS OBAMA TICKET. It would be a dream for the DEMS – A southern whiteman aembracing a black VP think of all the blacks and southern votes it would garner.

    September 3, 2007 02:17 pm at 2:17 pm |
  21. Rachel, North Carolina

    I don't normally comment here, but I had to reply to your ignorant remark "pl. at the UN for awhile". Mrs. Obama has actually been quite visible in her campaign with her husband. The difference between her and the other candidates' spouses is that they have small children and she must also spend time caring for them while her husband campaigns, while the other candidates' children are much older. But make no mistake, she is a very intelligent woman and has had much to contribute to his campaign.

    September 3, 2007 02:19 pm at 2:19 pm |
  22. Curtis, Norman, Oklahoma

    The headline for this on the main page "Edwards leads Clinton, Obama" was grossly misleading. Was that on purpose? It makes CNN seem to have an agenda or else be guilty of sloppy "journalism." Which is it?

    September 3, 2007 02:20 pm at 2:20 pm |
  23. Tom

    Well what do you know... I finally can endorse the same candidate as my union. I still think it's funny that Union bosses can pick a candidate. Most times, I don't agree. This time I do. GO JOHN!

    September 3, 2007 02:32 pm at 2:32 pm |
  24. Dan - Austin, TX

    Yeah, remember how well Edwards did cutting Dick Cheney down to size in their V.P. debate in '04? Oh wait, that's right. He totally dropped the ball and allowed Cheney to walk all over him. Okay then, remember how Edwards, as John Kerry's running mate was the most electable V.P. candidate in '04? Oh yeah, they lost. Edwards is a hack. If nominated, he is likely to blow the election by following the Democratic leaderships flawed advice to pander to the moderates. This strategy doesn't work for dems. People in this country are ready for a BIG change, and sadly, Edwards isn't it.

    September 3, 2007 02:36 pm at 2:36 pm |
1 2 3